The Role of Tmax in Bioequivalence Assessments: Past, Present, and Future

Listen to this article
In the realm of drug bioequivalence assessments and Phase 1 clinical studies, the focus has traditionally been on parameters such as Cmax (maximum concentration) and AUC (area under the concentration-time curve), owing to their critical role in evaluating therapeutic effects and safety profiles. Tmax pharmacology examines the time to reach maximum concentration, known as Tmax, which has not been a primary focus due to its complexities and less precise handling compared to Cmax and AUC. This characteristic, while less frequently used, has begun to gain attention for certain drugs and formulations where timing is clinically significant.
Historical Context and Emerging Trends in Tmax for Bioequivalence
While Cmax and AUC provide crucial insights into the drug’s exposure and overall bioavailability, Tmax offers additional information on how quickly a drug reaches its peak concentration. On clinical grounds, Tmax is undoubtedly more indicative of the drug’s absorption rate than Cmax, because a clinician will find it easier to say whether a difference of 15 min, 30 min, 1 hour or 2 hours between the Tmax of two formulations is clinically relevant, than to interpret a normalized ratio of maximum concentrations. Some argued that Tmax is an unconfounded, better metric for rate of absorption than Cmax in single dose studies (Figure 1). However, this parameter was often considered less critical due to variability in its measurement, and the inherent complexity in statistical analysis and interpretation.
Figure 1. Logical demonstration that information about the rate or speed of absorption resides in the discrete time or x-axis, not the continuous concentration or y-axis.

Some regulatory agencies or guidelines are evolving to consider Tmax for specific types of drugs or formulations, particularly if there’s evidence that Tmax impacts clinical outcomes or safety. Countries like Colombia, Brazil, the EU, South Korea, South Africa, Switzerland, and the WHO have acknowledged that if differences in the time required for the manifestation of the drug effect could affect its clinical usefulness – for instance, the timing of drug action of some fast-acting analgesics – then Tmax is used as a parameter for evaluation of bioequivalence.
ANVISA requires Tmax to be analyzed as an individual difference between test and reference products, using a non-parametric test to construct a 90% confidence interval when clinically relevant. Whereas EMA and WHO consider a numerical comparison of median values and their ranges sufficient, without the need for non-parametric confidence intervals. EMA further clarifies in their product-specific guidance of paracetamol that Tmax should be evaluated by comparing median values and ranges, and allows up to a 20% difference. In contrast, the FDA/TPD does not mandate specific Tmax criteria but expects that Tmax values for test and reference products should be comparable if clinically relevant.
Challenges in Using Tmax for Bioequivalence Assessment
Despite its potential benefits, incorporating Tmax into bioequivalence assessments presents several challenges.
Firstly, Tmax can vary significantly between individuals due to factors such as food intake, gastric emptying rate, gastrointestinal motility and the sampling schedule of the study itself. This variability can make Tmax less reliable as an indicator of bioequivalence compared to more consistent measures like Cmax and AUC.
Including a discrete parameter such as Tmax in the bioequivalence assessment in studies adds complexity to both study design and data analysis, which can lead to longer and more costly trials. Since Tmax does not follow a normal distribution, it is often evaluated with non-parametric statistics which are based on medians rather than means. Therefore, a slight imbalance in Tmax observations between subjects can significantly impact the median value, leading to potentially misleading results. For example, if Tmax in a reference pain reliever product X was at 30 min in 10 subjects and at 45 min in 9 subjects, the median Tmax of X is 30 min. Whereas, if in the equivalent product Y, Tmax occurred at 30 min in 9 subjects and at 45 min in 10 subjects, the median Tmax of Y is 45 min. Therefore, a difference in a single subject between two adjacent points may change the median value.
Furthermore, while there has been some discussion on potential statistical methods for comparing Tmax between groups, incorporating Tmax into sample size calculation remains impractical. As previously noted, different sampling schedules play a crucial role in Tmax observations, yet including this factor in sample size formulas requires complex simulations. Additionally, in order to develop an appropriate model, we need not only the peak time, absorption rate constant, and lag-time of the drugs or formulations, but also the variability of these parameters. However, such data are not always readily available due to the historical lesser emphasis on Tmax in the literature.
Let’s not forget that apparent differences in Tmax between formulations may not always translate into meaningful differences in efficacy or safety. The lack of a universal criterion for Tmax means interpreting study results can be challenging. Take the ≤20% difference in median and range criterion requested by EMA as an example: would an apparent 15-minute difference in Tmax have a significant impact on clinical efficacy or safety of the drug, and result in the inequivalence of the two product X and Y?
The impact of Tmax on clinical efficacy and safety can vary greatly between different drug types. Tmax does not always correlate strongly with efficacy or safety outcomes, which is why Cmax and AUC are often considered more critical for bioequivalence. Additionally, Tmax is less useful for drugs with ill-defined peaks (erratic concentrations around the peak) or modified-release formulations with complex concentration profiles or multiple peaks .
Therefore, the interpretation of the Tmax results should be made with great attention, acknowledging that there is no one size-fits-all approach for this sensitive parameter.
What Should We Do?
There are several strategies being discussed to address the Tmax component in bioequivalence and phase 1 studies. One should implement a sampling schedule to ensure equal intervals throughout the absorption phases and covering at least two to three times the expected peak concentration time to enhance the robustness of the dataset. Although most regulatory agencies agree that formal statistical analysis is not always required, and a formal statistical comparison is rarely necessary, non-parametric analyses, such as the Wilcoxon two-sample test and the two-sided normal (Z) approximation, have been proven to be valuable addition from our experience.
In some special cases, instead of comparing Tmax, we may assess ‘early exposure’ through a partial AUC, supported by scientific literature, as an alternative method to evaluate drug behavior. A “non-comparable” Tmax outcome needs to be handled appropriately to strike a balance between statistical/mathematical significance and clinical relevance.
Why Choose BioPharma Services for your Next fast-acting Drug Development Project?
Tmax provides essential insights into the drug’s onset of action and overall pharmacokinetic profile. At BioPharma Services (BPSI), we expertly navigate the balance between study feasibility, sponsor objectives, and regulatory compliance . Our team is adept at anticipating and addressing potential challenges, creating study proposals that meet all regulatory requirements while maintaining high safety and efficacy standards. BioPharma Services extensive in-house experience with clinical trials for fast-acting drugs distinguishes us in the industry. We perform comprehensive literature reviews, meticulously design study protocols, and implement precise sampling schedules, supported by standard statistical methods to thoroughly investigate Tmax variations among formulations. We have extensive experience in evaluating and interpreting pharmacokinetics performance, incorporating both statistical analysis and scientific rationale to deliver the most accurate overview of the investigational drug. Partnering with BioPharma Services ensures that you are collaborating with professionals who are adept at navigating these complexities.

Written By:
Thuy Van Nguyen
Pharmacokinetic Scientist
BioPharma Services, Inc., a HEALWELL AI and clinical trial services company, is a full-service Contract Clinical Research Organization (CRO) based in Toronto, Canada, specializing in Phase 1 clinical trials 1/2a, Human Abuse Liability(HAL) and Bioequivalence clinical trials for international pharmaceutical companies worldwide. BioPharma Services conducts clinical research operations from its Canadian facility, with access to healthy volunteers and special populations.